TPMDC
With Health Reform At Stake, Senators Scramble To Reach Public Option Compromise
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Share
Send to a friend!
Key Democrats in the Senate, accompanied by party leadership, are bearing down on a solution to the public option problem that has dogged the caucus for months now. They're holding a constant series of meetings, bringing liberals and conservatives together to reach a compromise--seemingly modeled on a trigger--that can garner 60 votes. And interestingly, one key public option supporter seems pleased.
"There's sort of a new initiative on the public option, which is highly useful, without saying anything more about it," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). "There's going to be a group of people representing various points of view who are going to just closet themselves and try and resolve this so we can have something on the floor that can pass," he said.
"It's been taking place, it's ongoing, several different rooms, several different groups," said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin.
Included in the meeting, according to Durbin, are the well-known public option skeptics, and, on the other side of the party, Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
"I'm doing my best to do what I can do," Sanders said.
"It's one of the two, i think, really critical issues remaining, with the issue of abortion," Durbin said.
"There are a number of us that are for a strong public option. There's those that aren't," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) told me. "Somewhere we'll meet in the middle.
"We are all in direct conversations about this," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). "Now it's come to a head."
"It's an informal, but aggressive...individual and small group discussions with a variety of different senators with different viewpoints to try to find a place of principled compromise," Landrieu said.
According to Landrieu, the focus right now is on a version of a proposal, first proposed by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and modified by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), to attach the public option to a trigger.
"What I could support is something like a competitive community option...which would be triggered," Landrieu said. "Various moderates have slightly different versions of that."
"That's where the discussion is right now," Landrieu added. "There has to be a decision soon."
Comments (35) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mans_best_friend
December 3, 2009 2:25 PM
Given a choice between a robust PO on a trigger and a crappy PO with no trigger, I think I'd choose the former, although it would depend on the particulars of the trigger mechanism. The key is to allow states to opt in if they choose. In that case I'd expect nearly all the big states to do so, rendering the trigger all but moot. With the big states in, the PO would have more than enough leverage to do its intended job. Before long, other states would want in too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 3, 2009 2:39 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
But, but all the big states, with the vast majority of the population and democratic, wouldn't opt in would they? Nah, let's keep the country hostage to senators from a handful of states with total populations less than new york or los angeles. Yeah, that makes sense. It's time for a constitutional convention to fix this cluster-f*ck called the Federal Government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 3, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
the Senate bill has State based exchanges (not National), and two of them at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
December 3, 2009 2:35 PM
Opt-out or opt-in? There is a HUGE difference there.
If it's Opt-IN, the legislature has to pass a law to do so AND the governor has to sign it. Even in large, blue states that happen to have Republican governors (such as New Jersey starting in January and possibly a few others come January 2011), that's not going to work.
If it's Opt-OUT, all states by default are included and they have to pass legislation to opt-out of the program.
I can accept an Opt-OUT clause. But an Opt-IN clause will NOT work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 3, 2009 2:38 PM
capitulation is the new compromise
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 3, 2009 2:41 PM
The sales pitch is coming folks! Compromise to a stronger public option! President Nelson, LIEberman, Lincoln, and et al....have made a great decision with the huge public support they have from the last election to know what is best for us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
December 3, 2009 2:44 PM
I rather suspect that anyone here who isn't dead-set against these bills regardless of what form the emasculated public option takes already has nice insurance and doesn't really understand what these terrible bills will do to the rest of us.
ANYTHING that obscenely enriches someone who is already ripping you off is not something progressives should be supporting at all. These bills suck doggy dicks, big-time. They are loaded with protections for private, for-profit insurers, and none of the "reforms" even go into effect for years. Get with it, people! KILL the BILLS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Coloured European Observer
December 4, 2009 7:53 AM in reply to TaosJohn
If the bills do benefit profit seeking HMO's then they are bad. If not, they are good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
December 3, 2009 2:45 PM
That's TaosJohn with an "n," too. It's correct in my profile, but not here. This platform sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 3, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to TaosJohn
You could hypenate....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
December 3, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to TaosJohn
That will copy and paste as "John." Gets clipped somehow. Probably the CSS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 3, 2009 2:49 PM
This bill must be defeated, its that bad.
But guess what?
All you are seeing now is what these bums have agreed to do privately.
This has long been a done deal with the blessing of the obama white house.
A total giveaway to the insurance companies.
No cost control and 40 million forced customers under penalty of fines.
the destruction is nearly complete.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
December 3, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to JadeZ
Yep, Change We Can Believe In.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 3, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to JadeZ
it is interesting that they've gone back to Snowe's proposal with new curtains on the windows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
December 3, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I could be wrong, but I think Snowe's amendment was a trigger to allow the creation of a state-based PO.
If we're talking about definitely creating a national PO, but making exchange-level participation in it dependent on premium levels, that's basically the same as the existing opt-out insofar as states with high prices won't opt out. If it's something that automatically happens, it's a completely different story.
AND if we can convince conservatives to give something up for it (namely, tie it to Medicare) we're ahead in the deal.
Snowe's proposal, though, was nonsensical, as the premium requirements were impossible to meet. Have a sane person write those requirements and we're golden.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 3, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to Miles
If we're talking about definitely creating a national PO
I haven't seen that. It'd be interesting to read about though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
December 3, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to JadeZ
Absolutely not. Think about this way. 45,000 americans die every year due to no insurance. Can you live with that on your conscience? I certainly cannot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 3, 2009 3:14 PM in reply to calchala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 3, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to calchala
Apparently, the senators who are willing to compromise away the integrity of the bill are willing to live with it. Of course, juxtaposing "conscience" and "politician" is oxymoronic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
December 3, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to JadeZ
I completely agree. I have been a Democrat my whole life, having frequently supported the lessor of two lousy choices. I've had it with all of them. In all my dreams, I could not imagine the scope of disappointment that the Democrats have become. Cowards, crooks, selfish cretins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tropicgirl
December 3, 2009 2:56 PM
The trigger has already been stomped on, spit on, kicked and puked on.
Keep it up Democrats. You will mostly be out of a job soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 3, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to tropicgirl
Who's going to replace them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 3, 2009 3:54 PM in reply to tropicgirl
TROPICGIRL IS A TROLL. IGNORE IT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 3, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Aw, sometimes it's fun to whack 'em with the ol' logic stick and see what falls off....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
December 3, 2009 3:23 PM
good thing Dems have a majority, and the Presidency
seriously though, it's time to get serious about third parties such as the Greens. it's the only thing that will shake up the two-party (two sides of the same coin) system. and sites like TPM need to get on board and start reporting on and encouraging support for Greens and other real progressive parties across the nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 3, 2009 3:49 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker
Will the corporate oligarchs let us have another party? If so, will they let it work against their interests? I'm guessing they'd give it the third side of that coin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
December 3, 2009 3:58 PM in reply to Schmed
I wonder if sites like Daily Kos and TPM can cut the umbilical with the Dems and become truly progressive. I'm just not so sure
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
December 3, 2009 3:28 PM
Trigger=No Public Option
It is just a way of pretending you are giving the people what they want when in fact you are NOT!
The bills already SUCK!
Take the mandates out of the bills and get whatever reforms you can still negotiate without the public option or mandates.
Health care reform has turned into a fiasco thanks to our leaders in DC
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
December 3, 2009 3:30 PM
More political ineptitude from the terminally weak Democratic party, especially the Senate Democrats.
There is no gutter so low or filthy that they won't crawl through it in the name of appeasing the GOP.
They are hopeless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
December 3, 2009 3:46 PM
They need to rebrand the trigger, in the worst possible way. Here's a compromise:
The Federal Gov't creates the Rockefeller PO. It's offered ONLY in the exchanges of states where premiums are too high OR prices are too high OR the state government passes a law allowing it.
This seems to be the "trigger" being discussed, not to be confused with the original "trigger" that would require a separate act of congress.
So, you call this the Semi-Automatic Public Option, and negotiate realistic premium and price levels that would set it off. That's much better than the House PO in price control and affordability--and you'd wind up with coverage in more places.
Bear in mind that Rockefeller's PO didn't cover abortion or birth control, so women won't want it anyway. The House's doesn't either. Why? Because Democrats are misogynists, too!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
December 3, 2009 3:51 PM
Is Lieberman in or out of these meetings?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 3, 2009 3:52 PM
WHAT'S WITH THE POP UP COMMERCIALS. IT IS VERY ANNOYING. I STOPPED VISITING HUFFPO BECAUSE OF THEIR NONESENSE AND COMMERCIALS. NOW HERE TOO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
December 3, 2009 3:55 PM
If Rockefeller supports it I will have to give it a second look. I am tired of the compromising with ourselves though
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 3, 2009 7:25 PM in reply to theone718
Compromise? It's been nothing but a con game from the get go. There never was going to be a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Derek Stodghill
December 4, 2009 9:35 AM
My prediction is that they'll remove the PO entirely and try to woo the Maine women in order to prevent any anti-abortion language in the bill. If they do this and then later go back and push a PO in a separate bill through reconciliation, it would be fine. The only way the PO gets signed into law is through reconciliation IMO. All other avenues seem closed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?